毋忘五大訴求 公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）
——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————
胡法官雅文閣下：
2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。
暴力之濫觴
在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！
在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？
社會之病根
對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。
如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。
堅持之重要
大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。
法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。
最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）
願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！
第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日
Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)
Your Honour Judge Woodcock
In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.
The roots of violence
At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!
In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?
The roots of society's problems
From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.
If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.
The importance of persistence
As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.
Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.
Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."
Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!
The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021
october八月 在 [溯源] 為什麼Dec是「十」的字根，但十二月卻是December？ 的推薦與評價
Oct-這個字根代表8 ，例如八爪魚(Octopus)、八分儀(Octans)、…
Dec-這個字根代表10，
為什麼October 不是八月而是十月？
為什麼December不是十月而是十二月？
以前的西方一直是用十月制，
而羅馬帝國建立後(公元前46年)，
凱撒首先把February削減日子，
增加一個以自己的名字為名的月份：
七月(July-Julius Caesar)
爾後凱撒的兒子奧古斯都(Augustus)繼承王位，
人們尊稱他為Augustus，其意義乃代表高貴 (Noble)，
於是他學凱撒將他的幸運月，以自己的封號命名。
八月(August-Augustus Caesar)
所以原本是八月的October與十月的December就被往下推成為十月與十二月。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.113.56.90
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
作者: satos (v(￣︶￣)y) 看板: ask-why
標題: Re: [溯源] 為什麼Dec是「十」的字根，但十二月卻갠…
時間: Sat Jan 6 03:53:49 2007
※ 引述《elision (睡飽飽上工去)》之銘言：
: Oct-這個字根代表8 ，例如八爪魚(Octopus)、八分儀(Octans)、…
: Dec-這個字根代表10，
: 為什麼October 不是八月而是十月？
: 為什麼December不是十月而是十二月？
: 以前的西方一直是用十月制，
: 而羅馬帝國建立後(公元前46年)，
: 凱撒首先把February削減日子，
: 增加一個以自己的名字為名的月份：
: 七月(July-Julius Caesar)
: 爾後凱撒的兒子奧古斯都(Augustus)繼承王位，
: 人們尊稱他為Augustus，其意義乃代表高貴 (Noble)，
: 於是他學凱撒將他的幸運月，以自己的封號命名。
: 八月(August-Augustus Caesar)
: 所以原本是八月的October與十月的December就被往下推成為十月與十二月。
補充~~
現今月份 英文名稱 羅馬舊曆及舊名 拉丁文義或代表神祇
一月 January 原無 天門神Janus
二月 February 原無 洗淨罪惡的Februa
三月 March (原一月) March 戰神Mars
四月 April (原二月) April April表示開花、萬物生長的日子
五月 May (原三月) May 職掌生長和繁殖的女神Maia
六月 June (原四月) June 天后Juno
七月 July (原五月) Quintilis 凱撒大帝Julius Caesar
八月 August (原六月) Sextilis 奧古斯都大帝 Augustus Caesar
九月 September (原七月) September 拉丁文septem為「七」的意思
十月 October (原八月) October 拉丁文octo為「八」的意思
十一月 November (原九月) November 拉丁文novem為「九」的意思
十二月 December (原十月) December 拉丁文decem為「十」的意思
西曆一年由12個月，西曆起源于古羅馬曆法。古羅馬曆法原來只有10個月，羅馬皇帝決
定增加兩個月放在年尾，後來朱裏斯·凱撒大帝把這兩個月移到年初，成為1月、2月，
原來的1月、2月便成了3月、4月，依次類推。這就是今天世界沿用的西曆。
Janrury 一月：在羅馬傳說中，有一位名叫雅努斯的守護神，生有前後兩副臉，一副回
顧過去，一副眺望未來。人們認為選擇他的名字作為除舊迎新的第一個月月名，很有意
義。英語一月January,便是由這位守護神的拉丁文名字Januarius演變來的。
February 二月：每年二月初，羅馬人民都要殺牲飲酒，歡慶菲勃盧姆節。這一天，人們
常用一種牛草製成的名叫Februa的鞭子，抽打不育的婦女，以求懷孕生子。這一天，人
們還要懺悔自己過去一年的罪過，洗刷自己的靈魂，求得神明的饒恕，使自己成為一個貞
潔的人。英語二月February，便是由拉丁文Februarius（即菲勃盧姆節）演變而來的。
March 三月：三月，原是羅馬舊曆法的一月，新年的開始。凱撒大帝改革曆法後，原來的
一月變成三月，但羅馬人仍然把三月看做是一年的開始。另外，按照傳統習慣，三月是每
年出征遠戰的季節。為了紀念戰神瑪爾斯，人們便把這位戰神的拉丁文名字作為三月的月
名。英語三月March，便是由這位戰神的名字演變而來的。
April 四月：羅馬的四月，正是大地回春、鮮花初綻的美好季節。英文四月April便由拉
丁文Aprilis（即開花的日子）演變而來。
May 五月：羅馬神話中的女神瑪雅，專門司管春天和生命。為了紀念這位女神，羅馬人便
用她的名字拉丁文Maius命名五月，英文五月May便由這位女神的名字演變而來。
June 六月：羅馬神話中的裘諾，是眾神之王，又是司管生育和保護婦女的神。羅馬人對
她十分崇敬，便把六月奉獻給她，以她的名字拉丁文Junius來命名六月。英語六月
June便由這位女神的名字演變而來。也有學者認為，Junius可能是古代拉丁家族中的一個
顯赫貴族的姓氏。
July 七月：羅馬統治者朱裏斯·凱撒大帝被刺死後，著名的羅馬將軍馬克·安東尼建議
將凱撒大帝誕生的七月，用凱撒的名字拉丁文Julius（即朱裏斯）命名。這一建議
得到了元老院的通過。英語July由此演變而來。
August 八月：朱裏斯·凱撒死後，由他的甥孫屋大維繼任羅馬皇帝。為了和凱撒齊名，他
也想用自己的名字來命名一個月份。他的生日在九月，但他選定八月。因為他登基時，羅
馬元老院在八月授予他Augustus（奧古斯都）的尊號。於是他決定用這個尊號來命名八月
。原來八月比七月少一天，為了和凱撒平起平坐，他決定從二月抽出一天加在八月上。從
此，二月便少了一天。英語八月August便由這位皇帝的拉丁語尊號演變而來。
September 九月：老曆法的七月，正是凱撒大帝改革曆法後的九月，拉丁文Septem是“7
”的意思。雖然曆法改革了，但人們仍沿用舊名稱來稱呼九月。英語九月September，便
由此演變而來。
October 十月：英語十月，來自拉丁文Octo，即“8”的意思。它和上面講的9月一樣，曆
法改了，稱呼仍然沿用未變。
November 十一月：羅馬皇帝奧古斯都和凱撒都有了自己名字命名的月份，羅馬市民和元
老院要求當時的羅馬皇帝梯比裏烏斯用其名命名十一月。但梯比裏烏斯沒有同意，他明智
地對大家說，如果羅馬每個皇帝都自己的名字來命名月份，那麼出現了第十三個皇帝怎麼
辦？於是，十一月仍然保留著舊稱Novem，即拉丁文“9”的意思。英語十一月November便
由此演變而來。
December 十二月：羅馬皇帝琉西烏斯要把一年中最後一個月用他情婦Amagonius的名字來
命名，但遭到元老院的反對。於是，十二月仍然沿用舊名Decem，即拉丁文“10”的意思
。英語十二月December，便由此演變而來。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.172.96.143
※ 編輯: satos 來自: 218.172.96.143 (01/06 04:17)
... <看更多>